Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 253 posts

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#91

Post by earthboundkid »

xracy wrote: post #39
WatchDog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We've still not proven that COVID was a lab-leak We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. > so we're attempting to say that something that otherwise has a very safe record is dangerous based on what might have happened. I'm not sure how good the record really is[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...

> We also haven't proven it wasn't a lab leak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)#P... Your second point is better taken.

I think if there's even a 49% chance that a certain kind of research caused the pandemic, it should be banned, because that's too high. Hell, even a 1% chance of another pandemic is too high, but I don't think any honest evaluator can put the odds of it having been a lab leak that low. It's not 100%, but I think anyone being honest with themselves about the evidence has to put it over at least 20%, and I think as high as 80%.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#93

Post by RandomLensman »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #88
RandomLensman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that in any way the currently accepted origin of the pandemic?

I know, it's crazy right? There are people here that just blindly assume that because the NIH lied about 1-degree indirectly funding gain of function research on coronaviruses at China's only level4 bio lab, where workers were just happened to be some of the first that got sick, where security protocols were admitted to being flawed, and the Chinese government came in and deleted data... that any of this means it cam…

Anyone can cherrypick what they believe - it just doesn't mean much in the real world. With respect to the lab leak hypothesis largely a US phenomenon, though.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#94

Post by jjoonathan »

mkmk3 wrote: post #79
tastyfreeze wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gain of function research is the kind of experiment that could develop a disease that kills billions. It isn't a game we should be playing lightly if at all. The argument is that eventually biology could make the same mutation. The thing is, it is extremely unlikely that Ebola becomes air born naturally, for example. But that is the kind of thing that gain of function seeks to develop, you know, just in case.

Naturally, there's an adversarial game playing out, and we accelerate it massively. If the results of our small games enter the larger playspace, we're damned, so I get your concern. Is there some scifi solution to step outside of the game? Are the problems involved in understanding the systems involved (to the extent that you can predict realistic risk and mitigate) solvable? I don't know the level of realistic risk…

> Is there some scifi solution to step outside of the game?

Of course there is, of course they already use it, and of course the people who think banning research is the peak of enlightenment aren't remotely interested in making this kind of distinction.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#96

Post by taylorportman »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #51
JoshTko wrote: post #24

Any benefit from research of gain of function research is clearly outweighed by risk of lab leak. I.e if the estimated incremental realized benefit of better planning, better mitigation from a single gain of function research equaled X; the cost of a lab leak seems to be 100X~10,000X.

Gain of function research is the kind of experiment that could develop a disease that kills billions. It isn't a game we should be playing lightly if at all. The argument is that eventually biology could make the same mutation. The thing is, it is extremely unlikely that Ebola becomes air born naturally, for example. But that is the kind of thing that gain of function seeks to develop, you know, just in case.

Eventually medical science is going to arrive at methods that have potential to cure/create disease, novel organisms, synthetic organisms, etc. I don't think we want these methods pursued in a geopolitical vacuum either - like an arms race. It is inevitable and the only way to improve our collective chances of survival will be to co develop building codes, quarantine strategy, and agile attitudes to respond in time.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#97

Post by saalweachter »

mkmk3 wrote: post #79
tastyfreeze wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gain of function research is the kind of experiment that could develop a disease that kills billions. It isn't a game we should be playing lightly if at all. The argument is that eventually biology could make the same mutation. The thing is, it is extremely unlikely that Ebola becomes air born naturally, for example. But that is the kind of thing that gain of function seeks to develop, you know, just in case.

Naturally, there's an adversarial game playing out, and we accelerate it massively. If the results of our small games enter the larger playspace, we're damned, so I get your concern. Is there some scifi solution to step outside of the game? Are the problems involved in understanding the systems involved (to the extent that you can predict realistic risk and mitigate) solvable? I don't know the level of realistic risk…

> I don't know the level of realistic risk for a devastating virus naturally occurring

If we assume it is directly proportional to the number of people (more people to encounter animals, more people to incubate potential pandemics), there were roughly 450 billion people-years lived between the Black Plague and the Spanish Flu and the Spanish Flu and COVID-19.

That would put the next zoonotic spillover around 2065.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#98

Post by peteradio »

cdchn wrote: post #87
Scramblejams wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody on the pro-GoF side talks about how valuable it could be. Do we have any demonstrated public health wins from it we can look at?

They certainly can come up with plenty of reasons its valuable for them. Cigarette smokers can come up with a lot of justification of why cigarettes shouldn't be banned. It seems like the GoF research shows a lot of "oh look we made a super virus. It would be very bad if a virus did this in nature." Perhaps we can get some data on specifically _how bad_ that particular function would be. What do we get beyond that? L…

Weapons research obviously.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#99

Post by sterlind »

shadowgovt wrote: post #64
fabian2k wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain gain of function experiments, e.g. modifying an animal virus to be able to infect humans could create viruses that might behave very similar to SARS-CoV2 if leaked. We now know more about the potential consequences of such a leak, we have a full-blown pandemic as a benchmark. If those experiments have a chance to repeat a similar pandemic, I don't think any of them are worth that risk.

Unfortunately, that sort of GOF research is at the top of the list of GOF utility. Because animal virii making the jump to humans is the risk factor the international epidemiology community tries to protect against, for the very reasons you've highlighted: the harm when it occurs and the frequency with which it occurs (rare, but often enough to create a once-a-century firestorm, at least). Spanish Flu was likely an a…

Do you actually need GoF research to prevent animal spillovers? Did GoF research help us develop the COVID vaccines? Or does GoF research mostly demonstrate the risks of spillover? Because I think we're now well aware of the risks, and ought to avoid poking the bear any further.

Re: Lab leak fight casts chill over virology research

#100

Post by somenameforme »

fabian2k wrote: post #65
chrisco255 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of a vaccine is to inoculate against a disease. The vaccine failed miserably at that. If the disease were actually deadly enough, more people would have chanced an experimental mRNA injection into their bloodstream vs taking the disease on via natural immunity. You didn't have to propagandize and gaslight people to take the smallpox vaccine: it was self evident how deadly the disease was. And yet, the wor…

COVID was a serious threat for anyone over 60 for example, that is already far more than 1% of the population. Without the vaccines many more people would have died.

You can [finally] find data on COVID death by age here. [1] Of the total 1.1 million US deaths:

Age Range : Deaths : Group Population as Percent of total US Population

55-64 : 159k : 12.9%

65-74 : 256k : 10.1%

75-84 : 300k : 4.9%

85+ : 311k : 1.8%

COVID was only especially dangerous to the extremely elderly, and particularly those with severe preexisting conditions. So for instance that 65-74 age group, you have about 34 million people, and only 256k deaths. Think about the numbers in that 34 million with cancer, severe diabetes, heart failure, etc. But then you go the 85+ group and with 1/6th as many people, ended up with about 20% more total deaths.

[1] - https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisional-COVID-19-Deaths-by-Sex...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta... (for the % of population data)

Post reply on HN